Array
One of Boris Johnson’s most uncomfortable afternoons as a politician is over. The former British prime minister faced over three hours of grilling before a parliamentary committee that is investigating whether or not he knowingly misled Parliament regarding breaches of Covid-19 guidance and rules inside 10 Downing Street when he led the country.
The question being asked was not if he misled Parliament: we know that he did and he accepts so. The question is not if rules were broken: we know that they were, after more than 100 fines were issued by the police to individuals working in Downing Street for attending gatherings that violated regulations. And we know that after a detailed report by a senior civil servant, Johnson has accepted full responsibility for what went wrong on his watch.
He told the committee: “I was not trying to cover up or conceal anything. I said what I said in good faith based on what I honestly knew and reasonably believed,” he said, admitting that “did not mean that I believed that social distancing was complied with perfectly.”
Lawmakers on the committee rebuffed Johnson’s innocence by putting it to him that it “must have been obvious to you at the time, and even more obvious on reflection afterwards as this whole thing broke around you, that it was in breach of workplace guidance,” as Conservative Bernard Jenkin put it.
What is in question is whether or not Johnson knew at the time he was making a false statement to Parliament when he said in December 2021 that guidance and rules had been followed “at all times.”
In his opening remarks to the committee on Wednesday, Johnson asked members to remember that this statement was made before the police investigation or civil service report into the “Partygate” scandal had been published. His suggestion, it seemed, was that hindsight is a wonderful thing, so it was only after these investigations that it became clear Johnson’s statement was incorrect.
The central point of Johnson’s defense is three-pronged.
First, he said it is “illogical” he could have known at the time that rules or guidance were broken because much of the photographic evidence the committee had published was taken by the Downing Street official photographer. Why, Johnson asked, would he ask a photographer to document events that he thought were illegal?
Second, Johnson presented a detailed understanding of the guidance. In response to the same photographs, which show Johnson giving a speech at a gathering where social distancing is clearly not being observed, the ex-PM makes a technical argument.
